Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Do the Pacers now have to move O'Neal

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Do the Pacers now have to move O'Neal

    "All this talk" has been the same speculatory newspaper articles that have had JO's name in them for like 2 years now.

    I agree with Jay that JO is fine with the idea of Larry/Donnie having discussions with other GMs about him. I think he understands it's not a "we have to get this guy out of here" situation, and just more of a "we have to explore all our options" thing.
    Read my Pacers blog:
    8points9seconds.com

    Follow my twitter:

    @8pts9secs

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Do the Pacers now have to move O'Neal

      I don't see why they'd trade for Ron when they could sign Hill.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Do the Pacers now have to move O'Neal

        Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
        Jim O'Brien. Sorry. I was just saying that neither move fixes our backcourt.
        Silly me. I thought you were saying Jim O'Brien would beat out Tinsley for the starting PG spot.

        Hey, its possible...

        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
        And life itself, rushing over me
        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Do the Pacers now have to move O'Neal

          Naptown Seth,
          Keeping JO means that we are trying to win now. If winning now means making into the East then we are fine. If winning now means being in the mix for a championship we are a ways off.

          By the way as the team stands I don't think winning 50 games and losing 4-1 in the finals is in the Pacers future. What I mean is missing the playoffs in the East then turning around and saying just because we could make the playoffs in the East next year doesn't mean that we are any good or have a bright future. The difference between us and Orlando is they have a young All Star, we have an aging one.

          The Laker trade or any trade would be for re-building. Bynum is still a couple years off. So fixing our backcourt so that we could be a top team wouldn't be the point.
          "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

          "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Do the Pacers now have to move O'Neal

            We should only NOT trade him if we send some of our younger guys away for a player to help us contend, say Paul Pierce.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Do the Pacers now have to move O'Neal

              Originally posted by rommie View Post
              I'm just speculating but I just believe that Jermaine would rather play elsewhere. I feel it makes sense.

              He doesn't have to come out and demand a trade publicly in order to ask TPTB for a trade.

              But hey i'm just speculating here.
              I agree with what you say.

              Out of sheer loyalty to the Organization.....I wouldn't be surprised if JONeal did ( as UB suggested ) work things out with TPTB to stay quiet so that they can work something out to move him to play with Kobe.

              I wish we can reload and make a run for the Playoffs with JONeal....but even some of us here don't think that is going to happen given what limited offseason changes that we can make that does not involve JONeal. How can JONeal...a guy that sees what is going on inside the organization...not see this too? I just don't get the sense that he is willing to stay on this "mediocre" team and continue to do what we did before. Hopefully JO'B can make a difference...but I don't think that JONeal wants to wait around to see if that happens.

              IMHO, I think that the second that he thinks that his chances of ending up with Kobe is beginning to dimiish ( as we get closer to the draft ), I wouldn't be surprised if these "rumored" comments begin to pop up more and more as we get close to the Free Agency signing period.

              But the second that he says something and forces the Pacers to take a "lesser" deal....we're screwed.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Do the Pacers now have to move O'Neal

                Nope, but I sure like the idea of trying to get out from under Troy Murphy's contract. Man, that thing is like a super albatross. I think I could stomach Dunleavy's deal, but there is no way Murphy should ever be making 10-12 million dollars for playing the role of Michael Doleac senior.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Do the Pacers now have to move O'Neal

                  "It's just business"

                  Jermaine seems mature enough to reallize that if the Pacers can't move him...he may have to play for us a little longer. I'm guessing that he probably did tell managment that he wanted to leave, but I'm sure management told him that their first responsibility is to making the best move for the team and its fans....So, be patient.

                  I think he does reallize that his best move is to work with TPTB, instead of Artesting his way out of town. Yeah, he can opt out...but, that WILL limit him to where he wants to go. I'm sure he knows that it is the same sorry teams that have free money to spend on a contract like his. Best to be traded and keep your contract instead of opting out and taking a pay cut!
                  ...Still "flying casual"
                  @roaminggnome74

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Do the Pacers now have to move O'Neal

                    I agree with Buck when he says that the Pacers have probably agreed to move Jermaine, as long as Jermaine keeps it out of the press.

                    But to answer the question... I believe the Pacers do have to move Jermaine. But he has one more year on his contract before he can exercise his option. Therefore, he does NOT have to be moved this summer, but IMO he does have to be moved prior to the trading deadline in February 2008.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Do the Pacers now have to move O'Neal

                      Gnome makes a good point when he mentions JO's contract.

                      I don't think the Pacers have to trade him because of the scuttle of this off season. I think the Pacers have to trade him from a dollars point of view.

                      The final year of JO's contract pays him $23M. I can't even find a word that describes what I think about that number. Rediculous comes close. Anyway the point is, if he is not traded, do you re-sign him at the end of his deal? If so, for how much? I doubt he will want to take a cut. Maybe, but he does think a lot of his own value.

                      Murphy's contract may be bad, but JO's contract is holding this team hostage when it comes to trying to improve.

                      Before you flame me about this, just let me say I would feel the same way if it were another player making that $23M. I don't think there is ANY PLAYER worth that kind of money.
                      Last edited by Tom White; 06-15-2007, 05:35 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Do the Pacers now have to move O'Neal

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        This is just my opinion, but I think JO came within an inch of demanding a trade. Pacers told him to keep it quiet, keep it out of the media and we'll look to move you. The question is what if the Pacers don't come up with a deal they like? Would JO be willing to come back? I think (he would) only if he believes the Pacers are trying to win now and trying to put tgether a very good team.
                        BINGO!

                        I think that's exactly what's happening now, and hopefully JO comes to realize it sooner rather than later. I think JO has felt the weight on his shoulders over the last 3-4 yrs and I sympathize with him, but that's part of being a leader.

                        My point, however, is except for the "youth movement" the majority of the problems JO spoke of during his April 19th press conference (click on video link barring JO's image) or have been taken care of already:

                        1) New coach = new offense (uptempo).

                        2) New offense = less reliance on him in the low-post.

                        3) Improved team defense = less stress on his body.

                        4) Improved emphasis on youth development = the youngsters play better and gain valuable experience.

                        The only other issue (and I'm speculating here) is JO's relationship w/Bird can only be worked out either man-to-man or one of them has to go, and believe me it will be JO long before it's Bird. So, from my perspective JO has a far better chance to move forward by remaining than he does by leaving (or being shipped out).
                        Last edited by NuffSaid; 06-15-2007, 05:37 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Do the Pacers now have to move O'Neal

                          I think the Pacers haven't painted themselves into a corner by just talking.
                          I mean no one knows what other deals are out there in the first place and surely the Pacer brass haven't been eager to start a rebuilding process.

                          The best possible deal for the team isn't necessarily the one that JO would agree too. Which is why I am not getting my hopes up.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Do the Pacers now have to move O'Neal

                            Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post

                            1) New coach = new offense (uptempo).

                            2) New offense = less reliance on him in the low-post.
                            Where the heck is Bball to bring up JO's famous "eigth game of the season" tirade?

                            By the way, I agree with Bball on that subject.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Do the Pacers now have to move O'Neal

                              I still don't see Jermaine winning a championship in Los Angeles, there's not enough fire power there!!! He should stay in the East were anyone can beat anyone. . .If anything he should stay in Indiana for another year and then opt out. Isn't that what Finley did and look. . .He's got a ring now!!!
                              R.I.P. Bernic Mac & Isaac Hayes

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Do the Pacers now have to move O'Neal

                                The answer to the question is no and yes.

                                No the Pacers don't have to move him. Even if he demanded a trade he is under contract and unless he is willing to eat a year of salary he will play. No there is no great popular uprising to see him moved on, so it's not like the club is getting pressure to move him on. In fact they will face quite the opposite problem if they ever do trade him.

                                Yes the Pacers have to trade him if they ever intend to improve as a team. New coach or not I just don't believe J.O. will ever accept being a part of a system that is not built around him unless there is a clear cut better player than him on the floor (al Bryant).

                                The team will continue to stagnate trying to put round pieces in square holes in a vain attempt to make a player who avg. 20/10 the center piece of a championship team.

                                A fresh start for everybody is in order here, including Jermaine. Maybe if he could get to a team that didn't expect him to be the big man he would be better off as well.

                                But I will contend that his production in the lineup will be easily replaced.


                                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X